Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all due respect, I don't think herenow1 made any reference to that - unless I missed it?
My mistake, I did not read his link about the farm in the USA hiring only whites, I just assumed it was a link talking about a farm in South Africa doing that. I though it was a bit rich given what is happening to the white farmers, especially in Zimbabwe.
Australia and Canada have much smaller populations due to their more reduced legacy of immigration and the more homogeneous immigration they received for much longer. Whereas the US has a much more complex colonial settlement pattern, involving as it did many European nations and African slavery, and it only got more diverse from there.
The US is also a lot older than Australia. Migration to Australia only started in the 1840s, prior to that the only arrivals were convicts and their jailers. In contrast at that time the US already had a population that was much larger than a lot of European countries have today. In 1850 (at the end of the first decade of open migration to Australia) the population of the US was 23 million compared to less than half a million in Australia. So the population of the US was 46 times that of Australia in 1850, and is now (only) 15 times that of Australia.
At the time of the Australian gold rushes in the 1850s a significant proportion of arrivals were from outside Britain and Ireland.
Last edited by Bakery Hill; 07-25-2022 at 04:49 PM..
[b]The US is also a lot older than Australia. Migration to Australia only started in the 1840s, prior to that the only arrivals were convicts and their jailers. In contrast at that time the US already had a population that was much larger than most European countries have today.
By the time of the Australian gold rushes in the 1850s a significant proportion of arrivals were from outside Britain and Ireland.
Of course Its also the reason why their are so few blacks in Australia, the empire outlawed African slavery when European Australia was nothing more than a single convict settlement of a couple of thousand people based entirely within modern day Sydney.
Canada is a bit more confusing, a Canadian would correct me I am sure, I am not sure if there was anything other than the obvious issues with climate that stopped it from expanding as quickly through the country as the US? Given they both were originally settled at a similar time.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 07-25-2022 at 05:02 PM..
The US is also a lot older than Australia. Migration to Australia only started in the 1840s, prior to that the only arrivals were convicts and their jailers. In contrast at that time the US already had a population that was much larger than a lot of European countries have today. In 1850 (at the end of the first decade of open migration to Australia) the population of the US was 23 million compare to less than half a million in Australia.
By the time of the Australian gold rushes in the 1850s a significant proportion of arrivals were from outside Britain and Ireland.
There were actually free settlers in Australia from early on, even the first fleet brought people who were not convicts. By the 1840s the 30,000 European residents of Sydney were campaigning heavily against continued convicts arriving. Obviously the population rose greatly in the 1840s and forward. But has always remained a fraction of that of the US.
There were actually free settlers in Australia from early on, even the first fleet brought people who were not convicts. By the 1840s the 30,000 European residents of Sydney were campaigning heavily against continued convicts arriving. Obviously the population rose greatly in the 1840s and forward. But has always remained a fraction of that of the US.
They actually ceased transportation to Brisbane in 1839, of course the major other problem building the population of Australia before 1850, was that their was 3 men for every women.
They actually ceased transportation to Brisbane in 1839, of course the major other problem building the population of Australia before 1850, was that their was 3 men for every women.
Continued until 1852 in Sydney, apparently, despite great opposition.
When people discuss the diversity issue, they tend to completely underestimate the divide in Australia between the Irish Catholics and mostly English Protestants. That really only started breaking down after WW2. Partly as many new immigrants at that time were Catholic and the church became less Irish.
However the Italians, at any rate, did not much relate to the Catholic Church and would infuriate the priests by only attending intermittently. My husband went to a Catholic school and the teachers would line up the kids who had not gone to Mass on the Sunday and cane them!
Portions matter 100%, using numbers you can start arguing that the USA is more Asian than Singapore or Laos.
I mean, they both say different things, I think the absolute number is more interesting because it shows where the most people are going. Having 10s of millions in a country, no matter the size, gives a different kind of assimilation - it’s the fact that the US has so many diverse ethno-racial groups of over 1 million in population that makes it so diverse. In comparison, Australia has a much more homogeneous, smaller “majority”, ethnically and racially - and a small population overall - this is always important to keep in mind when comparing two countries of vastly different sizes and ethnic make-up.
Of course Its also the reason why their are so few blacks in Australia, the empire outlawed African slavery when European Australia was nothing more than a single convict settlement of a couple of thousand people based entirely within modern day Sydney.
Canada is a bit more confusing, a Canadian would correct me I am sure, I am not sure if there was anything other than the obvious issues with climate that stopped it from expanding as quickly through the country as the US? Given they both were originally settled at a similar time.
Canada had a much more restrictive immigration policy too, all the way until the early 20th century. It only really liberalized, of course, from the 1960s.
Canada always had the English/French split, and received very mild Dutch and German settlement (compared to the US). Canada saw some Slavic settlement in the early 20th century, and some mild Italian and Southern European immigration well after the US did (mostly mid-to-late 20th century), similar to Australia. Then there was the modern, primarily Asian immigration from about 1989.
Canada always had the English/French split, and received very mild Dutch and German settlement (compared to the US). Canada saw some Slavic settlement in the early 20th century, and some mild Italian and Southern European immigration well after the US did (mostly mid-to-late 20th century), similar to Australia. Then there was the modern, primarily Asian immigration from about 1989.
There are parts of Australia where the original European settlers were largely German. Similarly, large scale immigration from Italy began pretty early in the 20th century in some parts of the country. The character is pretty noticeable even today. There is less evident Japanese influence in places like Broome. So it depends a lot on which part of Australia you're looking at.
The overall number didn't look large compared to the U.S. but you need to take into account the much, much larger total population of the U.S. at the time.
From time to time you see reminders of 19th century immigration from other countries. The oldest still functioning ski club in the world is claimed to be in Australia. It was started in the 1850s by Norwegians.
Fast forwarding to today, though, Australians born here and who have both parents born in the country are a minority group. Take that back another generation to grandparents, and it's an even smaller proportion of the country.
I mean, they both say different things, I think the absolute number is more interesting because it shows where the most people are going. Having 10s of millions in a country, no matter the size, gives a different kind of assimilation - it’s the fact that the US has so many diverse ethno-racial groups of over 1 million in population that makes it so diverse. In comparison, Australia has a much more homogeneous, smaller “majority”, ethnically and racially - and a small population overall - this is always important to keep in mind when comparing two countries of vastly different sizes and ethnic make-up.
So why reboot a 10 year old thread comparing the USA to two countries you know are much smaller?
The fact is if Australia had the population of the USA and maintained its current mix, it would have 40 different ethic groups of more than 1 million people, and would be home to more than 100 million immigrants, would that make Australia more diverse, despite fact the actual mix has not changed one bit?
Last edited by danielsa1775; 07-26-2022 at 12:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
